Differences in picture quality

[gazzerr]

Having just replaced my Marantz 7010 with a Tosh 900 , I decided to compare the picture quality between the two. I have to say that there wasn't much of a/any difference. I then also played between composite on the Marantz and the S Video and again I couldn't see much of a/any difference.

My question is do I need glasses or are the differences so small that you need to focus on a particular object/frame to see the differences - anyone got any favourite clips for comparing picture quality. I expected just to watch the film and say- yes it is much better.

I obviously now have a bit of a credibilty problem with the wife so any tips The Tosh is quieter and does play the Shakira CD but......


Cheers

I made exactly the same upgrade a while back! I definitely think there is a positive improvment in picture definition, sharpness etc...but it's only very apparent on extremely good transfers - e.g. Gladiator. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the bottleneck in most people's systems is the media itself...

[LV426]

There are many TVs out there which don't reproduce an image well enough to show up differences between DVD players (or discs for that matter). This is usually due to bad adjustment (eg too much brightness or contrast) or use of composite connections rather than SVideo, RGB or Component. But in many cases it is down to cr@p TVs - built down to a price rather than up to a standard. There are even people (and therefore, I conclude, TVs) who can't tell the difference in picture quality between VHS and DVD - "but the extras are great, aren't they?" Provided it is working correctly, the difference between a 'bad' DVD player and a 'good' one is much, much less than the difference between a 'bad' dvd player and a good VHS machine. If TVs revealed everything wrong with a picture, I doubt VHS would ever have beaten Betamax.